DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to the Amendment filed on 07/16/2025.
Claims 1, 7, 14, and 18 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) has been submitted. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite accessing and executing an application, transporting data securely using a secure network transport, wherein the application comprises an optical recognition code scanner configured to utilize a camera of the device to scan a dynamic, continuously changing optical recognition code, wherein the code is stored in a secure vault encrypted using a data at rest encryption scheme implementing white noise. The limitations of transporting data securely using a secure network transport and scanning a dynamic, continuously changing optical recognition code, as drafted is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing business transaction. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performing business transaction but for recitation of generic computer components, then the claimed invention falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims are directed to a generalization concept such as a generic computing device for transporting data to a network and a camera of the computing device for scanning the optical recognition code which is displayed on another device. The claims are directed to a generic computing device with the ability to transport the data to the network and using a basic camera of the computing device to scan the optical recognition code, nothing more than a basic computing device. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computing device merely includes a memory for storing instructions and a generic processor for executing the instructions. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-19 of U. S. Patent No. 11,652,815. Although the conflicting claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined claims contain elements of the patent claims, therefore, the examined claim is anticipated by the patent claim as follows:
Current Application No. 18/760,956
US Patent No. 11,652,815
Independent Claim 1
Independent Claim 1
Independent Claim 7
Independent Claim 6
Independent Claim 14
Independent Claim 13
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of U. S. Patent No. 12,058,127. Although the conflicting claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined claims contain elements of the patent claims, therefore, the examined claim is anticipated by the patent claim as follows:
Current Application No. 18/760,956
US Patent No. 12,058,127
Independent Claim 1
Independent Claim 1
Independent Claim 7
Independent Claim 7
Independent Claim 14
Independent Claim 14
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-11, 13-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian (US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0294092 A1) hereinafter Balasubramanian in view of Kang et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0330845 A1) hereinafter Kang in view of Odom et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/025135 A1) hereinafter Odom and further in view of Xue et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0184293 A1) hereinafter Xue.
Regarding claim 1, Balasubramanian discloses a method implemented using a device (Fig. 8, system 900) comprising:
accessing an application (claim 28, provide secure access to software application on a computing device);
executing the application (para 0062 and claim 28, executing the software application on the computing device);
transporting data securely using a secure network transport (para 0022, the network access management module 146 may require that the secured application 150 use a secure cryptographic protocol, such as SSL or TLS, for any communications over a wired or wireless network); and
securely storing and accessing code (para 0030, the certification authority 314 may ensure that access to the source code is protected, for example by requiring that core functionalities and security functions are implemented as protected classes), but does not explicitly disclose, however, Kang discloses wherein the application comprises an optical recognition code scanner configured to utilize a camera of the system to scan a dynamic, continuously changing optical recognition code (“animated” 2D barcode) (para 0004, The mobile device displays the sequence of 2D barcodes in a loop to create an "animated" 2D barcode that may be scanned by a camera on the merchant's mobile device to capture the payment information encoded therein) (Please note that the broadest reasonable interpretation “a dynamic, continuously changing optical recognition code” as "animated" 2D barcode).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to modify teachings of Balasubramanian to include an optical recognition code scanner configured to utilize a camera of the device to scan an optical recognition code displayed on a second device as taught by Kang in order to securely and efficiently transmit financial information between mobile devices (Kang, abstract).
The combination of Balasubramanian and Kang discloses the method of claim 1 above, but does not explicitly disclose, however, Odom discloses wherein the code is stored in a secure vault encrypted using a data rest scheme (para 0081, the data in the vault may be secured from unauthorized reading by encrypting the data using an encryption key that is generated by a combination of user input and authentication server input). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to modify teachings of Balasubramanian to include the code is stored in a secure vault encrypted using a data rest scheme as taught by Odom in order to prevent unauthorized reading the data from the vault (Odom, para 0081). The combination of Balasubramanian, Kang, and Odom discloses the method of claim 1 above, but does not explicitly disclose, however, Xue discloses implementing white noise (para 0037, white noise). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to modify teachings of Balasubramanian to include implementing white noise as taught by Xue in order to provide enhanced security.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Balasubramanian, Kang, Odom, and Xue discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the application is part of a web service (Balasubramanian para 0041).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Balasubramanian, Kang, Odom, and Xue discloses the method of claim 1 wherein an access-hardened application programming interface is implemented to provide access to the application (Balasubramanian para 0015, APIs).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Balasubramanian, Kang, Odom, and Xue discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the optical recognition code is displayed on a second device (Kang, para 0004).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Balasubramanian, Kang, Odom, and Xue discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising implementing tunneling to communicate using a secure sockets layer (Balasubramanian para 0022 and 0041).
Regarding claim 7, Balasubramanian discloses a system (Fig. 2, system 200) comprising: a memory (Fig. 8, memory 900) configured for storing:
a security-hardened code (Fig. 2, security framework library 210);
an application (FIG. 2, application 150); and
a processor (Fig. 9, processing system 902) coupled to the memory, the processor configured for processing the security-hardened code (para 0064, the methods and systems described herein may be implemented on many different types of processing devices by program code comprising program instructions that are executable by the device processing subsystem. The software program instructions may include source code, object code, machine code, or any other stored data that is operable to cause a processing system to perform methods described herein), but does not explicitly disclose, however, Kang discloses wherein the application comprises an optical recognition code scanner configured to utilize a camera of the system to scan a dynamic, continuously changing optical recognition code (“animated” 2D barcode) (para 0004, The mobile device displays the sequence of 2D barcodes in a loop to create an "animated" 2D barcode that may be scanned by a camera on the merchant's mobile device to capture the payment information encoded therein) (Please note that the broadest reasonable interpretation “a dynamic, continuously changing optical recognition code” as "animated" 2D barcode).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to modify teachings of Balasubramanian to include an optical recognition code scanner configured to utilize a camera of the device to scan an optical recognition code displayed on a second device as taught by Kang in order to securely and efficiently transmit financial information between mobile devices (Kang, abstract).
The combination of Balasubramanian and Kang discloses the system of claim 7 above, but does not explicitly disclose, however, Odom discloses wherein the code is stored in a secure vault encrypted using a data rest scheme (para 0081, the data in the vault may be secured from unauthorized reading by encrypting the data using an encryption key that is generated by a combination of user input and authentication server input). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to modify teachings of Balasubramanian to include the code is stored in a secure vault encrypted using a data rest scheme as taught by Odom in order to prevent unauthorized reading the data from the vault (Odom, para 0081). The combination of Balasubramanian, Kang, and Odom discloses the system of claim 7 above, but does not explicitly disclose, however, Xue discloses implementing white noise (para 0037, white noise). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to modify teachings of Balasubramanian to include implementing white noise as taught by Xue in order to provide enhanced security.
Regarding claim 14, Balasubramanian discloses an apparatus (Fig. 8, system 900) comprising:
a non-transitory memory (Fig. 8, memory 900) for storing a security-hardened library (Fig. 2, security framework library 210),
wherein the security-hardened library is configured for implementing:
an application (FIG. 9, application 904),
a processor (Fig. 9, processing system 902) coupled to the memory, the processor configured for processing the security-hardened library (para 0064, the methods and systems described herein may be implemented on many different types of processing devices by program code comprising program instructions that are executable by the device processing subsystem. The software program instructions may include source code, object code, machine code, or any other stored data that is operable to cause a processing system to perform methods described herein), but does not explicitly disclose, however, Kang discloses wherein the application comprises an optical recognition code scanner configured to utilize a camera of the system to scan a dynamic, continuously changing optical recognition code (“animated” 2D barcode) (para 0004, The mobile device displays the sequence of 2D barcodes in a loop to create an "animated" 2D barcode that may be scanned by a camera on the merchant's mobile device to capture the payment information encoded therein) (Please note that the broadest reasonable interpretation “a dynamic, continuously changing optical recognition code” as "animated" 2D barcode).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to modify teachings of Balasubramanian to include an optical recognition code scanner configured to utilize a camera of the device to scan an optical recognition code displayed on a second device as taught by Kang in order to securely and efficiently transmit financial information between mobile devices (Kang, abstract).
The combination of Balasubramanian and Kang discloses the apparatus of claim 14 above, but does not explicitly disclose, however, Odom discloses wherein the code is stored in a secure vault encrypted using a data rest scheme (para 0081, the data in the vault may be secured from unauthorized reading by encrypting the data using an encryption key that is generated by a combination of user input and authentication server input). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to modify teachings of Balasubramanian to include the code is stored in a secure vault encrypted using a data rest scheme as taught by Odom in order to prevent unauthorized reading the data from the vault (Odom, para 0081). The combination of Balasubramanian, Kang, and Odom discloses the apparatus of claim 14 above, but does not explicitly disclose, however, Xue discloses implementing white noise (para 0037, white noise). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to modify teachings of Balasubramanian to include implementing white noise as taught by Xue in order to provide enhanced security.
Regarding claims 8 and 15, the combination of Balasubramanian, Kang, Odom, and Xue discloses the system of claim 7 wherein the security-hardened library/code implements runtime verification of each executable, library and/or driver of the security-hardened library/code (Balasubramanian para 0024-0027 and 0064).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, the combination of Balasubramanian, Kang, Odom, and Xue discloses the system of claim 7 wherein the security-hardened library is protected using data at rest encryption and data in motion encryption (Balasubramanian para 0020 and 0042).
Regarding claims 10 and 17, the combination of Balasubramanian, Kang, Odom, and Xue discloses the system of claim 7 wherein access to software modules within the security-hardened library utilizes encryption/decryption (Balasubramanian para 0020 and 0042).
Regarding claims 11 and 18, the combination of Balasubramanian, Kang, Odom, and Xue discloses the system of claim 7 wherein the secure network transport comprises an encrypted channel and further wherein the subset of the plurality of building-block modules communicate using the secure network transport (Balasubramanian para 0022, 0041 and 0047, SSL/TLS).
Regarding claims 13 and 20, the combination of Balasubramanian, Kang, Odom, and Xue discloses the system of claim 11 wherein the secure network transport utilizes a tunneling mechanism, wherein the tunneling mechanism enables the subset of the plurality of building-block modules to communicate using a secure sockets layer (Balasubramanian para 0022, 0041 and 0047, SSL).
Claims 6, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian, Kang, Odom, and Xue as applied to claims 1, 7, and 14 above, and further in view of Islam et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0403787 A1) hereinafter Islam.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Balasubramanian, Kang, Odom, and Xue discloses the method of claim 1 above, wherein securely storing and accessing the code includes implementing encryption (Balasubramanian para 0022 and 0030), but does not explicitly disclose implementing quantum encryption. However, Islam discloses implementing quantum encryption (para 0021 and 0024). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Balasubramanian to include implementing quantum encryption as taught by Islam in order to prevent an unauthorized party from predicting a certificate or key value (Islam, para 0012).
Regarding claims 12 and 19, the combination of Balasubramanian, Kang, Odom, and Xue discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the secure network transport (Balasubramanian para 0022 and 0041, SSL/TLS), but does not explicitly disclose implementing quantum encryption. However, Islam discloses implementing quantum encryption (para 0021 and 0024). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Balasubramanian to include implementing quantum encryption as taught by Islam in order to prevent an unauthorized party from predicting a certificate or key value (Islam, para 0012).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (regarding amended limitation “wherein the code is stored in a secure vault encrypted using a data at rest encryption scheme implementing white noise” as recited in independent claims 1, 7, and 14) with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
On page 5, Applicant appears to argue that “the presently claimed invention utilizes a physical camera to scan an optical recognition code. This is clearly not an abstract idea”.
This is found unpersuasive because the claims are directed to a generic computing device with the ability to transport the data to the network and using a basic camera of the generic computing device to scan the optical recognition code, nothing more than a basic computing device including a basic camera for scanning the optical recognition code. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computing device merely includes a memory for storing instructions and a generic processor for executing the instructions and a basic camera for scanning an optical recognition code. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
On page 5, Applicant indicates that “in the event this obviousness-type double patenting rejection is the sole remaining rejection. Applicant would consider anew whether to file a terminal disclaimer”.
Therefore, the Double Patenting rejection of claims 1-20 is sustained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAOTRAN N TO whose telephone number is (571)272-8156. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7-3.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph P Hirl can be reached on 571-272-3685. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BAOTRAN N TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435